Kick member

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description reveals a crucial two-phase behavior: the first call is a no-op that returns a preview and confirm_token, and the second call with the token actually kicks. This adds significant context not captured by annotations and directly addresses the safety of calling a destructive tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact—three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the rejoin constraint, and the third explains the safe call pattern and action. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the most important behavioral info is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core operation and the critical two-step token flow, which is necessary for correct invocation. However, it omits details about the reason parameter, the exact behavior of dry_run, and post-kick outcomes (e.g., audit logs or DM), leaving some gaps for a fully comprehensive understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (guild and member), leaving reason, dry_run, and confirm_token undocumented. The description compensates partially by explaining the confirm_token flow and preview, but it does not clarify the purpose of dry_run or how it relates to the preview, nor the reason parameter. Thus, it adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove a member from the server') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ban_member by noting the member can rejoin with a new invite, which differentiates the kick behavior from a ban.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context by explaining the safe two-step call pattern and instructing the agent to relay the preview for user confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.